Rawls' Justice in chapter 6

I would like to argue against Rawls’ “Distributive Justice” theory. First I would like to state that equality should not be equated with justice. You typically hear “social justice” equating justice with equality. This means treating people unequally in order to make up for their deficiency of ability, motivation, and other attributes.

According to Rawls, to select the principles of justice in a fair way, we must remove all biases. Rawls’ theory requires the more favored to agree to a distributive rule that they would prefer if they were not more favored. Rawls suggests that people in an “original position” should agree that all goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of these goods is to the advantage of the least favored. Rawls illustrates justice as an issue of fairness, focusing on the distribution of resources. Rawls argues for inheritance taxes on the basis that a transfer of wealth would result in an accumulation of wealth in particular parts of society. He says, individuals who are not fortunate enough to have wealthy parents do not merit worse starting points and, consequently, worse life prospects than those who were fortunate.

I argue that:
1) People hold an entitlement to what they produce or acquire and therefore should be protected from Rawls’ redistributionist policies. The difference principle involves infringements on liberties in such that you are taking what is rightfully mine (immoral takings of just holdings). 2) Fairness is not the proper standard of justice. The old cliché “the world is not fair”, nature does not produce equality among people. People possess different mental and physical attributes (smarter, more talent, prettier). Therefore I argue economic equality is not a goal compatible with nature. It is up to the individual to use his talents to acquire wealth and pursue their conception of happiness. So why should those “favored by nature” be made to pay for what is not a moral problem or an injustice?